Debunking Ethical Realism

Good Essays
William J. FitzPatrick’s “Debunking Evolutionary Debunking of Ethical Realism” functions to refute several related arguments against realism. I will not go into detail on any of those arguments. Instead I will try to summarize FitzPatrick’s understanding of our moral beliefs’ ability to track moral facts and his general response to debunking arguments.
It will be useful to have a brief sketch of the type of argument against realism that FitzPatrick has in mind. He grapples with two general forms of debunking arguments, both of which state that the source of moral beliefs is separate from moral facts. One form yields skeptical outcomes for realism because our moral beliefs would be extremely unlikely to track facts that are not their source,
…show more content…
FitzPatrick argues that such forces do not stand in the way of our grasping moral facts, and in doing so sketches his own view of realism. Foremost in his view is that we are capable of grasping moral truths. It is this grasp that debunking arguments contend is impossible, whether because our mental capacities and moral beliefs are distorted by evolution or by something else. But FitzPatrick says that evolution does not necessarily distort our capacity to grasp moral reality. It is reasonable, he says, to assume that we evolved mechanisms (such as cooperation) that both allow us to live longer and allow us to form a correct understanding of morality (17-18). Is it equally plausible that we “evolved capacities for logical reasoning and conceptual sophistication,” however crude, that we can now use as refined moral tools (8). So the fact that our minds are shaped by evolution does not mean that we cannot grasp moral facts as long as evolution gave us even the most basic cognitive capacities to allow us to reason and reflect critically on moral questions …show more content…
And because it is possible that evolution did give us the mechanisms for our moral beliefs to track moral facts, simply stating that independent moral truths do not explain our moral beliefs is begging the question. The debunking argument makes such a statement, so it assumes that realism is false in order to prove that realism is false (20). It might just as easily be true that some moral beliefs are explained by moral facts, some by evolution, and some by a combination of both in which we have good reasons and evolutionary cause to believe something (23).
At best, the debunking arguments reveal a challenge to realism, not a defeat of it. The proposed challenge would be to explain how we evolved to have the rational capacities that allow us to grasp moral facts and, as FitzPatrick also suggests, how we evolved the emotional capacities to grasp such facts (30-31). He believes that it is plausible that we have evolved in just such a way. So with the addition of reasoning and emotional training it is plausible that our moral beliefs track moral facts, rather than being distorted by forces such as

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    We must assume our beliefs are innocent until proven guilty by Good Reason, and that most of our beliefs are probably close enough to the truth, otherwise they would not have aided in the survival and been selected for by evolution. The best argument against moral realism does not even need evolution to make us rightfully worry, but the inclusion of evolution weakens the argument, leading to skepticism again. Our disposition to make a distinction without a difference is a serious moral dilemma, but has no bearing on the current discussion since we are addressing the problem of evolution in relation to realism. The problem here is not in the content of the argument itself, but in the very…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Rather, my point is that whatever process someone proposes as the process of justification should attempt or try to track truth. However, justification by theory-laden perception doesn’t remotely track truth, it actually allows any belief to be justified if it penetrates cognition, i.e. anything goes. Here’s an example from the moral domain to make clear why letting anything go in terms of justification is problematic. Assume that moral theory-laden perception is true.…

    • 1550 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Kant Vs Utilitarianism

    • 1790 Words
    • 8 Pages

    One would need to know what the extraterrestrial’s ethical principal system was and how it could be applied to human beings. If you look at someone like Immanuel Kant and the way he looks at ethics, he would obviously be skeptical about human beings adopting the extraterrestrial system. Kant already believes that the existing system is sufficient enough and therefore there would be no need to adopt a new one. According to Kant, measuring the morality of the intention of an action is much more important than the consequences that are created. Kant would likely debate that assuming the Extraterrestrial system would mean that all human being would have to abide by the system.…

    • 1790 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Objectivism is a strong proponent of saying that some moral claims can be true, but it is never specific in its claims of what these “some” cases really are. Moral relativism is somewhat in between the ideals of objectivism and nihilism. Relativism states that the value of moral claims is relative to the culture or people around them. Perhaps the biggest argument against relativism is the argument from disagreement. This states that if relativism is true, then there can be no genuine disagreement between cultures about morality.…

    • 1071 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Kant says that an action cannot be deemed as completely moral if it cannot be universalised. The principle is very just as it rules out the possibility of making exceptions for yourself, obligating you to keep your promises and act towards a certain moral standard. For example if you needed to lie in a situation, you need to think what if everyone lied? The situation would result in chaos and the whole idea of truth being questioned too, as human relationships need trust to function the causality of lying would mean trust would be impossible. On a grand scale, lying is typically associated with being negative but sometimes lying is used in our daily lives to be more moral e.g.…

    • 1607 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    One, instead, should be able to criticize the beliefs of others. James is correct in claiming that one should use their will when forming certain beliefs; but contrary to what he thinks, this process does not lead to the maximization of true beliefs. Preconceptions heavily influence what one wills to believe. If these preconceptions are tainted by false knowledge, formation of new true beliefs becomes difficult. James’ theory would be effective at creating many new beliefs but his process does not emphasize the creation of true beliefs, as he desires.…

    • 1421 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    One way he argued for this was through his argument from relativity in which he supposes the best way to explain the wide spread moral disagreement within society was to conclude that values are relative, and there are no objective truths regarding morality. I deem this to be a successful argument, critics whom provide alternative explanations for this phenomenon make a underlying misunderstanding regarding human nature, placing too much emphasis on facts and underling general principles, both of which appear to play a fairly insignificant role in the construction of moral…

    • 1470 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Free Will Vs Determinism

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages

    A neutral stance to this is the claim that “ one can be held morally responsible for one’s actions only if one could have acted otherwise in a given set of circumstances.” (The Philosophical Review, page 440). Determinist would disagree with this claim because it is if an agent is never in control of the situations that they are forced into, how can they be morally responsible. Free will does not easily tie into the premise because if we choose our own action then we should be held morally reasonable for them, but if one said that “X” did Y because she/ he could it fails to prove moral responsibility and seems as if our action or arbitrary or random. However if an act is described as “not determined” or “uncaused” that means that free will cannot be used because the action is random therefore not in the agent’s power, thus making morally responsibility invalid. Simply, without the just the agent being the cause of an action, they cannot be held to moral…

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Midterm, Regan and Midgley: Understanding the Reality of Moral Judgment According to Tom Regan in “How Not to Answer Moral Questions,” moral judgment is irrelevant to the reality of moral truth. Though such judgments require understanding, justification, sound reasoning, real-world application, and independent verification, the mere existence of such judgments does not affect the truth of the matter. In “Moral Isolationism” Mary Midgley adopts a similar conclusion to Regan, though she does so through the argument of individual morality. Rather than supporting this argument of necessary moral judgment through a standpoint of universal morality—like Regan—, she refutes moral cultural relativism through a criticism of the popular practice of non-judgment (which she believes to be a moral judgment itself) and an encouragement of cultural understanding and respect. In this paper I will argue that though the conclusions on moral judgment that Regan and Midgley arrive at are compatible, their respective reasons for arriving at these conclusions are not harmonious.…

    • 1516 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Moral relativists such as David Wong and Gilbert Harman have provided a more sophisticated version of moral relativism which mitigated some flaws of the inaugural and naïve form which Rachel argued against. Cultural relativism is also a relevant theory to explain the extreme cases of disagreements in our world. However, there is still invalidity and shortcomings of the cultural relativism argument that hinders moral progress, or deteriorate the view about morality into nihilistic grounds. Hence it is still essential to maintain some moral truths as objective instead of accepting the theory in…

    • 1886 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays